Users Online Now:
GLP Poker Rooms
Donate To GLP
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Thread for Atheists & Christians - STFU
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Don'tBeAfraid:MV8yMTI2NzkzXzM1OTIyMzgzXzU5OEQzMkUy] Kierkegaard's Arguement for believing in God even through one cannot use Reason to prove God's existence (see my post on Reason alone not being able to prove or disprove God) http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/kierkegaard.html "An [unknown thing] is an existent thing. God is an [unknown thing]. God is an existent thing. The syllogism is of the valid form: All B's and C's. All A's are B's. All A's are C's In an argument, one gives reasons, grounds, and evidence for the acceptance of a conclusion. Existence must be assumed in the premisses; it cannot be proved. Occasionally, this point is expressed as "Existence is not a predicate." Consider the following inferences from the Square of Opposition: All philosophy students are awake ----------> At least one philosophy student is awake. All unicorns have horns ---------> At least one unicorn has a horn. If the subject of the conclusion exists and the conclusion is true, then we must have assumed the existence of that subject in the premisses of the argument. For example, one does not prove Napoleon's existence from his deeds. An unknown invaded Russia, lost the Waterloo campaign, was exiled to Elba, and so on. Napoleon is the unknown. If we tried to prove the existence of God by a posteriori means, then we could never finish listing the events in the natural order. Thus, the proof would be incomplete--we would be anxiously awaiting future events. Again, existence explains the deeds, but the deeds do not prove existence. Thus, Kierkegaard says we would be living in suspense until the proof is complete. The proof would hang on future occurrences." [/quote]
Let's get right to it.
No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is real.
No one can prove that "God" or any variation thereof the concept is NOT real.
All arguments are moot without assuming a "given".
How can I say all this with certainty?
BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT DREAMING RIGHT NOW, with fabricated memories and all.
No matter what, FAITH is required just to participate in whatever you think is reality.
Both atheists and God-believers base their beliefs on FAITH in experiential data.
A true atheist "lacks a belief" and that is a perfectly honest position to hold. However, the rabid atheists who argue endlessly that "there is no God" are taking the same leap of faith that the proselytizing Christians are.
SO--is there a GOD?
My experiential data (a near-death experience that was seemingly as "real" as anything else I've experienced) says YES.
That's why I believe in God.
But I'd be a liar if I said that my NDE provides "proof"--even to myself. After all, my dreams are as "real" as anything even when I'm walking on the ceiling and lightsaber fighting and flying a MIG--all with a head full of outlandish memories.
So...all of you know-it-alls arguing FOR or AGAINST the concept of "God" need to
because your arguments ARE DEMONSTRABLY FLAWED.
Pictures (click to insert)
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Misc Small Smilies
View All Categories
Next Page >>
Disclaimer / Copyright Info
with questions or comments about this site.
"Godlike Productions" & "GLP" are registered trademarks of Zero Point Ltd. Godlike™
Website Design Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Godlikeproductions.com
Page generated in 0.005s (5 queries)